Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts

Friday 29 March 2024

Is the rental property or properties you own or manage capable of killing your tenants?

 

Are you on the board of a not-for-profit organisation that provides social or affordable rental housing? Do you have a residential property portfolio or do you just own a second home your rent out?


Then this post is written for you to consider.


Is the rental property or properties you own or manage capable of killing your tenants?



ACOSS Heat Study 2024, 1 March 2024, excerpt:


Hotter days and homes with poor energy performance create hot boxes that cannot be cooled


People variously described living in hot homes that they cannot cool as “awful”, “unliveable”, “miserable”, “unbearable”, “torture” and “a prison.”


Of the 1007 people who completed the survey, most (80.4%) said their home gets too hot in the summer.


Over half the people surveyed (56.7%) said they struggle to cool their home.


At a state and Territory level, more than half of people in Western Australia (67.2%), Queensland (66.1%), Australian Capital Territory (64.3%) and New South Wales (55.0%) said their home gets too hot and they struggle to cool it. Nearly half of the people surveyed in Victoria (45.8%), South Australia (45.7%) and the Northern Territory (45.5%) also had this experience. Tasmania was the only jurisdiction where all people surveyed said either their home was comfortable, or they are able to cool it when hot.


Some groups were more likely to struggle to cool their home:

people renting in social housing (78.3%)

people receiving income support (60.8%)

people renting directly from a real estate agency (68.6%) or landlord (56.7%).


People in social or private rental properties have very limited control to make changes to their home to make it more energy efficient and resistant to extreme temperatures. They have limited control to install insulation, draft proofing, shading, fans or air conditioners, regardless of whether or not they can afford these changes. Of the 558 people living in social housing or private rental, most (69.7%) said they struggle to cool their home[my yellow highlighting]


I rent and there is no air con. Though I have fans, that can’t compete with high temps.

My apartment is north-west facing at top of the block.”

- Judith, New South Wales


People who indicated that they were in insecure housing (3%) also spoke of having limited control to cool their home when it gets too hot.



Healthy Futures, media release, 26 March 2024, excerpt:


Heat-related illnesses kill thousands of Australians every year (1) and roughly one-third of these deaths can be attributed to climate change (2,3). Heatwaves increase the risk of dehydration, kidney failure, heart attacks and strokes. Older people, children, people with pre-existing health conditions and people unable to afford air conditioning are most vulnerable. [my yellow highlighting]


Currently, many social housing dwellings are poor quality and prone to temperature extremes (4-6). A 2023 survey of people on low incomes by the Australian Council of Social Services found that 94.5% avoided using air conditioning because it is too expensive (7). Solar panels can significantly reduce air conditioning costs, and while 30% of Australian homes now have rooftop solar, rooftop solar coverage on social housing in New South Wales, for example, is only 7% (8).


Energy efficiency retrofits and renewable-powered air conditioning will not only protect people from extreme temperatures and drive down costs of living; they will also mitigate climate change and its health impacts in the long term by reducing dependence on polluting fossil fuel-based electricity.



Nature Climate Change, 11, pages 492–500 (2021)


Published 31 May 2021:


The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change


A. M. Vicedo-Cabrera, N. Scovronick, F. Sera, D. Royé, R. Schneider, A. Tobias, C. Astrom, Y. Guo, Y. Honda, D. M. Hondula, R. Abrutzky, S. Tong, M. de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coelho, P. H. Nascimento Saldiva, E. Lavigne, P. Matus Correa, N. Valdes Ortega, H. Kan, S. Osorio, J. Kyselý, A. Urban, H. Orru, E. Indermitte, J. J. K. Jaakkola, N. Ryti, M. Pascal, A. Schneider, K. Katsouyanni, E. Samoli, F. Mayvaneh, A. Entezari, P. Goodman, A. Zeka, P. Michelozzi, F. de’Donato, M. Hashizume, B. Alahmad, M. Hurtado Diaz, C. De La Cruz Valencia, A. Overcenco, D. Houthuijs, C. Ameling, S. Rao, F. Di Ruscio, G. Carrasco-Escobar, X. Seposo, S. Silva, J. Madureira, I. H. Holobaca, S. Fratianni, F. Acquaotta, H. Kim, W. Lee, C. Iniguez, B. Forsberg, M. S. Ragettli, Y. L. L. Guo, B. Y. Chen, S. Li, B. Armstrong, A. Aleman, A. Zanobetti, J. Schwartz, T. N. Dang, D. V. Dung, N. Gillett, A. Haines, M. Mengel, V. Huber & A. Gasparrini


Abstract


Climate change affects human health; however, there have been no large-scale, systematic efforts to quantify the heat-related human health impacts that have already occurred due to climate change. Here, we use empirical data from 732 locations in 43 countries to estimate the mortality burdens associated with the additional heat exposure that has resulted from recent human-induced warming, during the period 1991–2018. Across all study countries, we find that 37.0% (range 20.5–76.3%) of warm-season heat-related deaths can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change and that increased mortality is evident on every continent. Burdens varied geographically but were of the order of dozens to hundreds of deaths per year in many locations. Our findings support the urgent need for more ambitious mitigation and adaptation strategies to minimize the public health impacts of climate change. [my yellow highlighting]



The Lancet, Planetary Health, Volume 5, Issue 7, E415-E425

Article published July 2021, excerpts:


Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study


Prof Qi Zhao, PhD Prof Yuming Guo, PhD Tingting Ye, MSc Prof Antonio Gasparrini, PhD Prof Shilu Tong, PhD Ala Overcenco, PhD Aleš Urban, PhD Alexandra Schneider, PhD Alireza Entezari, PhD Ana Maria Vicedo-Cabrera, PhD Antonella Zanobetti, PhD Antonis Analitis, PhD Ariana Zeka, PhD Aurelio Tobias, PhD Baltazar Nunes, PhD Barrak Alahmad, MPH Prof Ben Armstrong, PhD Prof Bertil Forsberg, PhD Shih-Chun Pan, PhD Carmen Íñiguez, PhD Caroline Ameling, BS César De la Cruz Valencia, MSc Christofer Åström, PhD Danny Houthuijs, MSc Do Van Dung, PhD Dominic Royé, PhD Ene Indermitte, PhD Prof Eric Lavigne, PhD Fatemeh Mayvaneh, PhD Fiorella Acquaotta, PhD Francesca de'Donato, PhD Francesco Di Ruscio, PhD Francesco Sera, MSc Gabriel Carrasco-Escobar, MSc Prof Haidong Kan, PhD Hans Orru, PhD Prof Ho Kim, PhD Iulian-Horia Holobaca, PhD Jan Kyselý, PhD Joana Madureira, PhD Prof Joel Schwartz, PhD Prof Jouni J K Jaakkola, PhD Prof Klea Katsouyanni, PhD Prof Magali Hurtado Diaz, PhD Martina S Ragettli, PhD Prof Masahiro Hashizume, PhD Mathilde Pascal, PhD Micheline de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coélho, PhD Nicolás Valdés Ortega, MSc Niilo Ryti, PhD Noah Scovronick, PhD Paola Michelozzi, MSc Patricia Matus Correa, MSc Prof Patrick Goodman, PhD Prof Paulo Hilario Nascimento Saldiva, PhD Rosana Abrutzky, MSc Samuel Osorio, MSc Shilpa Rao, PhD Simona Fratianni, PhD Tran Ngoc Dang, PhD Valentina Colistro, MSc Veronika Huber, PhD Whanhee Lee, PhD Xerxes Seposo, PhD Prof Yasushi Honda, PhD Prof Yue Leon Guo, PhD Prof Michelle L Bell, PhD Shanshan Li, PhD


Introduction


Earth's average surface temperature has risen at a rate of 0·07°C per decade since 1880, a rate that has nearly tripled since the 1990s.1 The acceleration of global warming has resulted in 19 of the 20 hottest years occurring after 2000 and an unprecedented frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme temperature events, such as heatwaves, worldwide. Exposure to non-optimal temperatures has been associated with a range of adverse health outcomes (eg, excess mortality and morbidity from various causes).2, 3, 4, 5, 6 All populations over the world are under certain threats from non-optimal temperatures, regardless of their ethnicity, location, sex, age, and socioeconomic status. For example, in China, 14·3% of non-accidental mortality in 2013–15 might have been related to non-optimal temperatures, with 11·6% of deaths explainable by cold exposure and 2·7% explainable by heat exposure.7 In the USA, the risk of mortality increased by 5–12% due to cold exposure and 5–10% due to heat exposure between 2000 and 2006.8 An association between ambient temperature and mortality risk has also been reported in India, Australia, the EU, South Africa, and other countries and regions. 9, 10, 11  [my yellow highlighting]





Figure 1 Average daily mean temperatures of the 750 locations from the 43 countries or territories included in the analysis

The colours represent the different ranges of average daily mean temperature during the data collection periods shown in the appendix (p 4).



Daily minimum and maximum temperatures between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2019, were collected from the Global Daily Temperature dataset (grid size 0·5° × 0·5°) of the Climate Prediction Center. This dataset was developed, by use of a Shepard algorithm with observational data from 6000 to 7000 weather monitoring stations worldwide,15 as a benchmark for a range of reanalysis products and climate change models. Daily mean temperature was calculated by averaging daily minimum and maximum temperatures.


ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

Volume 272, 1 October 2022:


Integrated assessment of the extreme climatic conditions, thermal performance, vulnerability, and well-being in low-income housing in the subtropical climate of Australia


Shamila Haddad, Riccardo Paolini, Afroditi Synnefa, Lilian De Torres, Deo Prasad, Mattheos Santamouris


Abstract


Social housing stock worldwide can be characterised by poor indoor environmental quality and building thermal performance, which along with the increasing urban overheating put the low-income population at higher health risk. The dwellings’ thermal performance and the indoor environmental quality are often overlooked in the context of social housing compared to the general building stock in Australia. In the present study, the synergies between urban microclimate, indoor air temperature, housing characteristics and quality of life of residents have been investigated by employing subjective and objective assessment of indoor environmental quality in 106 low-income dwellings during the winter and summer of 2018–2019 in New South Wales. It further examines the impact of urban overheating and levels of income on indoor thermal conditions. The subjective method involved assessing the links between the type of housing in which low-income people live, energy bills, self-reported thermal sensation, health and well-being, and occupants’ behaviours. The results show that many dwellings operated outside the health and safety temperature limits for substantial periods. Indoor air temperatures reached 39.8 °C and the minimum temperature was about 5 °C. While the upper acceptability limit for indoor air temperature was 25.6 °C for 80 % satisfaction, periods of up to about 997 and 114 continuous hours above 26 °C and 32 °C were found in overheated buildings, respectively. Indoor overheating hours above 32 °C were recorded up to 238 % higher in Sydney’s western areas compared to eastern and inner suburbs. Similarly, residents in westerns suburbs and regions experience more outdoor overheating hours than those living near the eastern suburbs. This study highlights the interrelationships between ambient temperature, housing design, income, thermal comfort, energy use, and health and well-being in the context of social housing. The evidence of winter underheating and summer overheating suggests that improvements in building quality and urban heat mitigation are required to minimise the impacts of poor-performing housing and local climate. [my yellow highlighting]



Tuesday 5 March 2024

Climate Change Australia State of Play 2024: will there ever be climate resilient housing for the poor and disadvantaged?

 


IMAGE: The Guardian, 9 December 2023






Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), "ACOSS Summer Heat Survey 2024", 1 March 2024, excerpts:


* Introduction


Summers are becoming hotter with climate change. In fact, the last nine years were the world’s hottest on record, with 2023 being the hottest year to date. Australia is experiencing more very hot days and heatwaves, and Bureau of Meteorology data forecasts more days where the national daily average is over 40 degrees. For people in remote areas and places like central and northern Australia, high temperatures are already common and daily temperatures reach 35 degrees for over half the year.


Severely hot days and heatwaves affect people experiencing financial and social disadvantage worst because they have fewer resources and choices to protect themselves from extreme heat. This is an urgent and critical public health problem. Heatwaves cause more deaths than all other extreme weather events combined. In Australia, there were an estimated 36,000 deaths associated with heat between 2006 and 2017. A lack of access to energy-efficient homes is often a primary factor in these deaths.


People experiencing financial and social disadvantage are vulnerable to high temperatures because they often live in homes that are poorly insulated, with no or limited shading; and no air conditioning or fans to help cool indoor temperatures. Even if the home has air conditioning and/or fans, rising energy costs mean that people on low incomes often cannot afford to run them. They are also less likely to have rooftop solar, which would significantly reduce their energy bills.


Further, people in rental properties are not able to make changes in their home that could make them more liveable, healthy and safe. Minimum rental standards could address this problem by placing requirements on landlords to ensure their property protects tenants against heat or cold. For example, the ACT requires landlords to have ceiling insulation and Victoria is implementing minimal rental standards.


ACOSS conducted a public, online Heat Survey over the 2023-24 summer to explore the intersection between high temperatures, energy performance of homes, energy costs and income. The data is gathered to advocate for support for people experiencing financial and social disadvantage to secure cooler, healthier and more climate-resilient homes, putting people with the least at the centre of government policy and planning.


The survey gives us valuable insight into how severely high heat affects people’s physical and mental health, their wellbeing and activity when they cannot cool their homes. The survey highlights how seriously poverty and poor energy-performing homes can reduce people’s resilience and capacity to cope with debilitating hot weather.


The ACOSS Heat Survey was open from 1 December 2023 to 28 January 2024. It was made available online via the survey tool, TypeformTM.



* Key findings


Exposure to high heat is a major threat to human health. More people die in Australia from heatwaves than all other extreme events combined. With climate change, Australia is becoming hotter. Very hot days and heatwaves are becoming more common. People experiencing financial and social disadvantage are worst impacted by these events.


Those worst affected experience a combination of:


homes with poor energy performance;

high energy prices;

low incomes; and

health conditions.


To track the intersection between housing, energy costs, heat, and people experiencing financial and social disadvantage, ACOSS conducted a public, online Heat Survey over the summer months, from December 2023 to January 2024. We received 1007 responses from people across the country, including: 66.1% receiving income support; 19.2% in social housing; 36.1% in private rental; 6.4% First Nations respondents. Additionally, 62.7% reported they or someone in their household has a disability or chronic health condition.


The survey found the majority of 1007 people surveyed (80.4%) said their homes get too hot. This was often to do with being in homes with low energy efficiency (e.g., no insulation or shading, dark roofing, no eaves).


More than half (56.7%) could not cool their home because:


they do not have air conditioners or fans, or have them but they are broken, or have them only in part of the home or they are ineffective in cooling the home; or

if they had functioning air conditioners and or fans, they could not afford to run them.


People most likely to struggle to cool their homes were:


people in social housing (78.3%) or private rental (65.7%) with limited control to modify their home or access working efficient air conditioners to better deal with extreme temperatures;

people receiving income support (60.8%) with limited resources to modify their homes, afford air-conditioning or fans, or afford the running costs to cool their home;

and

First Nations people (71.9%), two thirds of whom were in social or private rental, and more than three-quarters of whom were receiving income support.


Exposure to high temperatures in the home has a range of serious negative impacts on household members. Respondents to the survey reported:


Negative physical and mental health impacts, making them unwell (80.5% of all 1007 respondents; 94% of First Nations respondents). For many, the heat seriously aggravated existing chronic health conditions or disabilities.

Having to seek medical attention for heat stress (14% of all respondents; 25% of First Nations respondents).

Difficulty sleeping (94% of all respondents; 98% of First Nations respondents), reduced productivity for work and study, and raised tensions in the home.

Avoiding everyday household activities due to the heat (like housework and cooking).


While medical and government advice often is to leave home to go to a cooler place during very hot weather, this is not always easy. Most people (90.5%) reported that they face mobility, cost and other barriers to doing so.


Many people reported challenges affording their energy bills which meant they couldn’t cool their home and/or afford other essentials:


59.8% reported finding it increasingly difficult to pay their energy bills, which affected their capacity to cool their homes.

Many reported that high energy bills made it difficult to pay for essentials like food (46.7%), medicine (41.4%) or housing (34%).


First Nations respondents were even more likely to be struggling to pay for essentials such as energy and other bills (86%), food (75%), medicine (63%) and housing (58%).


A quarter of all 1007 people surveyed (25.8%) were currently in energy debt with their retailer or believed they would go into energy debt because they could not afford their next energy bill. People receiving income support (69.4%) and First Nations people (55%) were more likely to say they had an energy debt or that they considered it to be imminent.


We note that while the people surveyed are currently housed, extremes of temperature present more severe health risks from exposure and threats to life itself to people living on the streets or sleeping rough.


Findings from the ACOSS 2024 Heat Survey raise similar concerns to the previous ACOSS 2023 Heat Survey Report and Sweltering Cities’ 2021 and 2022 Summer Survey Reports.


However, a hotter summer in 2023/24, coupled with rising costs for energy, housing, food and other essentials were reflected in people’s comments. There was a clear level of distress amongst people surveyed about the growing challenge to reduce the impacts of

heat while affording energy bills and avoiding – or compounding existing - energy debt.


For people experiencing financial and social disadvantage, especially those living with disability or a health condition, the situation of hot homes that cannot be cooled remains untenable, putting lives at risk. The situation facing First Nations people surveyed is much worse on almost every measure. Therefore, prioritising this report’s recommendations for First Nations communities is essential.


Almost all 1007 people who completed the 2024 Heat Survey (96.5%) called on governments to do more to improve homes to be more resilient to extreme heat (and cold) and to support people to be able to afford energy bills and other essentials....


Read the full 30 page report and recommendations at:

https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ACOSSHeatSurveyReport2024.pdf



Saturday 25 March 2023

New words and phrases entering the Northern Rivers lexicon

 

The first phrase in this occasional segment is:


disaster investor” [origin unknown, circa 2023]  a person who deliberately seeks out homeowners whose properties have been flood damaged and offers these homeowners as little as 10 cents on the dollar of the pre-flood value of a freestanding house.


Monday 6 March 2023

Is the Perrottet Government an out-of-control political and planning juggernaut about to smash its way through NSW Northern Rivers communities?



BYRON SHIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA


In which property developers get access to existing rail corridor and Mullum community loses green space......

  

Byron Echo, 1 March 2023


Byron Echo, 22 February 2023:



As previously reported, the entire railway corridor length in Mullum will become either medium-density ‘affordable housing’ or car parks, under a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 24 November between Council and the state government, which has a three-year expiry date.


The public were not informed of the plans until the MoU was presented as a Council agenda item. The MoU also includes Council’s ‘aspirations’ for access via the rail corridor to its land called Lot 4, enclosed by a bend in the Brunswick River.....


Note: Area 3" of "Map 2" will allegedly be "affordable housing focus". This areas coincide with the section of flood prone land chosen by Resilience NSW for landfill to accommodation emergency housing pods.


In which more flood storage is removed from the floodplain and where the direction of flood water traveling across Mullum township in a 100 ARI event is altered....


Byron Echo, 22 November 2022:


The Resilience NSW (ResNSW) Flood Report on the impact of the fill at the emergency housing site at Mullumbimby was finally released to the public on 7 November.


The report details the impacts that the fill, built up to current 1-in-100-year flood level under selected Scenario A, will have on flood levels for existing housing, in particular on Prince, Poinciana and Station Streets.


According to the report, there are 11 properties that will see an increase in flooding in a 1-in-100-year event, and 85 properties that will actually see a reduction in flooding in this type of event,’ said Byron Shire Mayor, Michael Lyon.


They might not want the fill to be removed.’


Two properties identified in the ResNSW Flood Report, with six units that were severely impacted by flooding in 2022, will see a 3cm increase of above-floor flooding as a direct result of the fill-in a 1-in-100-year flood (as labelled in 2020 by the North Byron Floodplain Management Study and Plan).


The temporary pod site will provide 40 units, for up to 160 people who were affected by the devastating February floods. However, there are key areas where the ResNSW Flood Report by BMT fails to provide adequate information on how their conclusions are drawn regarding the impact on existing houses and residents in these areas.


Local Councillor and hydrologist Duncan Dey pointed out that, ‘At 40 pages this is a very thin technical report and it has not provided the modelling and details needed to allow the public to see how they reached, or to confirm, the conclusions they have put forward. There is also no clue as to who did the actual modelling, or authored the report’.


3–6cm not a small increase


In their November Construction Update, ResNSW say that this is a ‘small increase in flood levels’. However, Cr Dey says that ‘in the profession, rises of 3cm or 6cm are not considered small’,


The government should accelerate the many flood mitigation options at its disposal, as described in the adopted North Byron Floodplain Risk Management Plan. That plan is a joint venture of Council and the NSW government. Work on those measures might well achieve a 3cm drop in flood levels at this and many other sites throughout the north of the Shire. Government should pursue that rapidly, before the next flood.’


Fill creates a levee


The flood report deals with current climate conditions only. It doesn’t deal with future flooding, which will be worse in 2050 or 2100. It doesn’t have to, because the fill is only there until the middle of this decade… or is it?


It looks at the 385m long fill site that runs parallel to the railway, plus an 80m northward extension as shown in Figure 4.1 of the report.


This fill acts as a levee bank. It totals 465m parallel to the railway and acts as a barrier to flow when the Brunswick Valley floods,’ explained Cr Dey.


The water flows west to east down the Brunswick Valley, that is, it flows from the Mullumbimby Showground across town towards the Industrial Estate.’


Flood velocity overlooked


The impact of the velocity, the speed that the water moves during the flood event, has not been presented in the report.


The reality is that these velocities have to have been modelled to obtain the water levels,’ said Cr Dey.


The ResNSW Flood Report contains no information about flood velocities and hence doesn’t consider their impacts. If you block a 465m width of a floodplain like this, you get still water behind the levee (on the east side) but you get a raging torrent around the two edges of the levee. By not examining velocities, government doesn’t have any picture of how they will impact Poinciana and Argyle Streets, which are the streams that the high velocity water will run down. The result could be that people who were able to get out of harm’s way under the pre-fill scenario may no longer be able to. One family escaped on 28 February by floating their kids to a neighbour’s elevated house using a kid’s three-ring pool as a life raft. Flood velocity must always be considered as well as flood depth.


Why were the velocities not reported and made publicly available to the community? They sit there in the computer model – it won’t run without them. We don’t know what the consultant was asked to do or report on as this has not been made public. The community is in the dark about the parameters being considered on their behalf by ResNSW.’


Long-term site?


The Mayor, Cr Lyon told residents when the report was released that there had ‘been talk of houses and other purposes here [on the fill site] for 20 years… Those conversations [regarding future removal of fill] are not for right now’, he said. However, the risk to existing houses if the fill remains long-term are significantly increased.


Under the state’s own Floodplain Development Manual, constructing works on a floodplain is only allowed after investigation through a proper Floodplain Study and Plan. We completed one in 2020. It doesn’t support a levee bank anywhere in the floodplain of the Brunswick River,’ explains Cr Dey.


As shown on Table 4 of the ResNSW Flood Report, the 100-year flood level is lowered under Scenario A for 85 properties while being raised for 11 properties. The story for rarer floods, like the 2022 flood, is far more unacceptable however, and must not be ignored, especially if the fill stays after 2025.


The report estimates 280mm of water above the floor level for one of the negatively impacted houses during a 1-in-100 year flood. However, they just experienced 800mm above floor level in the February 2022 flood. The report did consider the 2022 flood. Figures like Drawing 2.2 in the report indicate that a 100-year flood is 0.5m deep in Poinciana Street. However, flood marks indicate the 2022 level at half a metre higher.


It is likely that when the North Byron Floodplain Plan is reviewed for the 2022 flood, that review will raise the 100-year level for this area to the level experienced in February. That is an increase of half a metre above what was studied for the ResNSW Flood Report. This report has studied the wrong flood.


In planning law the 100-year flood is used to for setting floor heights for new constructions. When considering impacts of mitigation works, like levee banks, on existing residences, all floods should be considered, especially the floods of most concern to the people affected. In this case, that is the flood they just had.


The ResNSW Flood Report doesn’t consider the 2022 flood and how a repeat of that flood would behave with the fill in place.


Climate change


The ResNSW Flood Report ignores climate change, because it is for a two-year project, not the one the mayor is speaking about in relation to longer-term housing on the site. Climate change will make what is now the 100-year event occur more frequently. And similarly, the future 100-year flood is likely closer to the current 500-year flood.


For the current 500-year flood, the report shows that the fill of Scenario A (which is effectively a levee bank) lowers the flood level at 57 properties while raising it for 56 properties.


For the “Probable Maximum Flood”, the fill lowers flood levels at only two properties, while raising it at 52 properties. Most of those affected properties are west of the railway line, around Station Street.


ResNSW modelling shows a significant increase in flooding in Station Street for the 1-in-500-year flood scenario. If the fill remains long-term, these figures would be the ones that count. They show that this levee bank would be deemed unacceptable under normal scrutiny.’


The right consultant?


It is understood by The Echo that work done last decade on the North Byron Floodplain Management Study by BMT, previously known as WBM-BMT, had to be redone by a second consultant before it could be used. Byron Shire Council resolved (19-036) in February 2019 ‘that Council recognise the weakness of service provided by the consulting company which prepared the Flood Study [will] and consider that in future engagements’. So why did ResNSW choose this same consultant?

[my yellow highlighting]


NoteMullumbimby Emergency Housing - Flood Impact Assessment by BMT (Official) was created for Customer: Symal Infrastructre Pty Ltd [sic]. The draft document went through six revisions between 27 October and 22 November 2022.

Symal Infrastructure Pty Ltd is a private corporation headquartered in Spotswood, Victoria, specialising in Construction, Civil construction, Building construction, Engineering, Earthworks, Plant hire, property development, and Landscaping according to its Linkedin entry. Its shareholders are listed by ASIC as: Bartolo Family Investments Pty. Ltd, R. Dando Investments Pty Ltd and Fairbairn Investments Pty Ltd.


The Mullumbimby Emergency Housing - Flood Impact Assessment has been endorsed by the NSW Perrottet Government.


Landfill area for emergency housing pods is outlined in red in this Google Earth snapshot. This landfill area will have to be extended north and west towards the Brunswick River and to the south, under the NSW Transport Asset Holding Entity (TAHE) proposal.
















The Echo, Letters, 17 November 2022:


Resilience NSW was tasked to provide emergency housing for flood refugees. Byron Council and Transport NSW provided 3–5 year short-term leases for three greenfield sites – the rail land in Prince St, Mullum, the riverbank behind the Bruns sports field, and on public open space beside the preschool in Bayside Brunswick.


Nine months later the engineers are still filling and compacting the soil – right on the riverbank in Brunswick Heads and in Prince Street with B-double trucks cruising through our towns every day, for months on end, at phenomenal, unnecessary and unwanted expense.....


Digging trenches to provide services isn’t easier with tonnes of roadbase in the way.


The roadbase is needed so cars and trucks can drive over the sites instead of parking offsite and hiring a crane to lower the pods onto the foundations.


It’s the most insensitive, inappropriate design and construction undertaken in our Green Shire, seemingly without any consultation with, approval by, or oversight from Council – the leaseholder. It must be stopped before they dump fill at Bayside Brunswick too.


After months of costly activity we still haven’t got one house, yet our caravan parks are raking in the profits on their unfilled, unimproved land sites. There is no justification or necessity for this ugly brutalist style of development in the 21st century.


Who are these experts? The professionals over-engineering with this gold-plated use of public funds? Why has no one in power queried or challenged this excessive over-development on leased land? Where are those Byron Shire councillors and directors hiding? Even the work crews are embarrassed to talk about the environmental impacts.


There are far better ways to provide accommodation for those in dire need, just ask the community for advice – we’re giving it away for free.




LISMORE CITY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA



In which Lismore City Council becomes a local government for roads, rates and rats.....



The Echo, 2 March 2023:


NSW Planning Minister, Anthony Roberts, has removed planning powers from Lismore City Council. Councillors failed, on February 14, to constitute a local planning panel (LPP), which is designed to ‘speed up planning processes to support flood-recovery efforts’ that would have allowed them to nominate two members to the committee from a minister-approved pool of candidates.


The NSW government’s LPP usurps Council’s planning powers.


In a letter to Mayor Steve Krieg, Roberts said the failure ‘may result in confusion and uncertainty for planning processes in Lismore LGA.’


Under (s) 2.17 of the EP&A Act 1979, Roberts appointed ‘members to sit on Council’s behalf’.


All associated costs for the panel will be borne by Council, Roberts added.


Disempowering communities


Cate Faehrmann, Greens MP, planning spokesperson and lead candidate for the Upper House said, ‘The Planning Minister has a track record of disempowering communities to serve developer interests’.


The NSW government needs to establish a process that gives Lismore residents agency over the reconstruction process, not one that will let developers roll over the community to squeeze as much profit out of reconstruction as they can’.


The Lismore community has been crying out for greater transparency and control over the recovery process. Instead, the NSW Government has disempowered the community even further,’ said Ms Faehrmann.


The people of Lismore are anxious about how decisions are being made about the future of their city. The last thing they need is an undemocratic planning panel making decisions for them about what reconstruction is going to look like.


The fact that Lismore council needs to pay for the staff and facilities of the government’s sham planning panel is completely unacceptable. It’s another flagrant example of state government cost shifting which will hurt Lismore council ratepayers even more.


I’m calling on the government to reverse this decision and at the very least pay for the costs of this planning panel,’ she said.


Lismore needs transparency


Local councillor and Green Candidate for Lismore Adam Guise said, ‘It’s outrageous that the Liberal Planning Minister is riding roughshod over our community and sacking Lismore councillors from local planning decisions. Councillors were never consulted on this extraordinary announcement made by the Minister last year only days before Christmas.’


Lismore Council decided at its February meeting not to constitute a planning panel. Councillors resolved to keep our planning powers so that planning decisions are made locally with community involvement.....

[my yellow highlighting]


Tuesday 17 January 2023

Cynicism burns strong in the Northern River as the March 2023 state election date draws nearer

 


Echo, 13 January 2023:


With the NSW election looming on March 25, there will no doubt soon be a government bonanza of promises to impress, you, the good-looking and articulate voter, into thinking that this or that party will govern with your interests at heart.


Politicians want to be taken seriously now? How cute!


State governments use your taxes to pay for health, education, police and roads, among many other services.


Other things they use your taxes for include throwing huge wads of cash at electorates they think they can win (called pork barrelling), or generously repaying their campaign donors.


That aside, another crucial role state governments have is with planning.


As we saw recently with the NSW planning minister’s intervention on [Byron Shire] Council’s holiday letting policy – local governments are merely a corporate arm of the state government, and will be reined in if they do not reflect the government’s views.


The views of the current NSW Liberal-Nationals government appears to deny local decision-making, renege on that promise, and undermine any chance to address the housing crisis.


And also, presumably, repay their campaign donor mates in the holiday letting industry.


The current government aren’t doing that well across the state, and with any luck there will be a much-needed change of direction after election day.


Or will NSW Labor act in the same way?


Moving on, a planning policy that is currently on the table from the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) is reforming the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, (or Housing SEPP).


The current Housing SEPP, as the peak body for local government, Local Government NSW (LGNSW), says, contains ‘blanket provisions that override local controls [and] undermine this framework for local strategic planning, by disrupting outcomes endorsed through councils’ local strategic planning processes’.


It’s widely known that affordable housing SEPPs don’t work as intended. Or as a cynic may say, they are working perfectly for the one per cent. Just not those who need affordable housing.


For example, LGNSW support affordable housing, developed under the Housing SEPP, to be in perpetuity, ‘not 15 years, as current provisions allow’.


Also, unlike the current government, LGNSW supports ‘locally-developed responses to short-term rental accommodation (STRA)’.


To have your say on the housing reforms, which are on exhibition until January 13, visit www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Housing/Housing-SEPP.


Hans Lovejoy, editor